I believe this article clearly shows that language really lives its own life and is in fact shaped not by grammarians and linguists but the users, who don't care about historical roots of words but want to use it in an efficient manner to convey what they intend to. On top of that, English is much more flexible in the usage of some aspects of language since it uses notional rather than grammatical concord (as can be observed on the example of "the team are"), as opposed to other languages, Slavic ones, for instance. So I think that there are only two kinds of people who sort of deal with this problem: geeky linguists and nerdy students.

I spend every day immersed in mechanical CAD. Many features reference a datum plane (or several), and new planes are created as needed. As a result, we frequently use the word "datums" in our conversations.

Not an exact analogy, because your example "park" is two distint words, not two usage rules for one word. Be that as it may, academics would generally agree. They continue to use "data" as plural in their formal writing, but don't get worked up over how it is used in common speech. The problem is solved, however, only if everyone stops calling academic usage "pedantic." It is not.

Does the rightness, for example, of which side of the road it behoves one to drive in America, correspond to the manner one’s right hand opposes the left, its converse of wrongness, or the judicious Constitutionality of a legal prerogative? Indeed, is the usage of a mere word a matter of rightness, as in binding correctness, or a matter falling rather within the remit of the First Amendment? IOW, can I say what I damn-well please, come hell or high water, or is “data”, the singular word, so f… ambiguous that the implicated data are entirely lost in transcription?

Hello GH1618,
I disagree with your first sentence. It is my understanding that a word is a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing. "park" is a distinct word - there's only one way to spell it.
Let me prove it. If you encounter a sign that simply says "Park" - what do you imply from that? Does it means you've arrived at a public park or is it instructing you to park your car?
The reader has no way of understanding what the sign actually means because it lacks context. Especially if it's located at a car park, right next to a public park.
The one distinct word 'park' (a collection of letters) has at least two meanings (semantic senses). In English, we can and frequently do, add new meanings (senses) the same collection of letters (words).
Everything else you said I agree with 100%.

Data is now a mass noun, like flour and rice. People who use data don't care very much about single "data points", not when commodity hardware deals with gigabytes of it. Good article, obviously the first step in the Economist changing its style.

To readers who want to fight the good fight, defend the singular of dice.

Funny you should mention that. The expression “the die is cast” comes from games of chance in which the outcome is determined by the throwing, not of one die but more than one. Popularized by its alleged use by Julius Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon to begin a civil war in the Roman Republic, indicating the commission of an irreversible act, from whence we also have, “to cross the Rubicon”.

For our pedants, the form “the die is cast” is from the Latin iacta alea est, a mistranslation by Suetonius, 121 CE,[1] of the Ancient Greek phrase of Menander «Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος» (anerriphtho kybos), which Caesar quoted in Greek (not Latin). The Greek translates rather as “let the die be cast!”, or “Let the game be ventured!”, which would instead translate in Latin as iacta alea esto.
Source: en.wiktionary.org/

On that note. While this expression is said to have nothing to do with the modern-day process of die-casting of metal, the same sense of irrevocability would nevertheless seem to be equally apt. It’s not on what I mean and certainly not on what I say, but always and ever on that which you are able to make of my text, that I must finally and utterly depend.

Who cares? Most people don't know how to use a preposition, so arguing about "data is" or "data are" seems a bit smug.
"He analyzed the frequency of the expressions 'data is' and 'data are' in books published over the past century using Google Ngram viewer."
This is basic grammar; junior school stuff. Yet how many people can even spot the mistake?

I don't see anything wrong with that sentence (perhaps the "using Google Ngram viewer" clause would be better-placed earlier, but this is not "basic grammar" or even a real error). That semicolon of yours, on the other hand, seems like it ought to be a full colon or a comma.

Politics evolve. No rule is fixed forever, but some rules are important and worth to be preserved/enforced.

Exactly the same holds for language. Rules make language logical and easy to use and understand. Not all rules are necessary, but some rule violations really harm the language. Which ones do and don't is a matter of discussion, but the evolving nature of language in itself is not useful to justify any specific kind of change that is in fact happening, just as it wouldn't be in politics. Politics can develop in a bad way and language can as well. The logical cohesion of a language is a purpose in itself. It's not about whether someone "feels" something is right or wrong or just happens to use words in a certain way.

How did this childish Rudolf Steiner like argument "language evolves so [any] change is good" get established even among intelligent people? What is this, learn-to-express-your-feelings class?

"Data" is synonymous with "information". In almost any setting, data can be substituted for the word information, or information for the word data, without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yet, information is singular while data is considered plural.

Since information does not have an analogous word to refer to "a piece of information", it is considered singular, despite potentially referring to multiple things. Data, as indicated, does have this analogue in the form of the word "datum". However, because "datum" is used so infrequently to the point of being obsolete, the word "data" is linguistically the same as the word "information". Thus, "data" should arguably be considered a singular noun and validly treated as such in casual and professional conversation, as this is already the functional convention.

'Information' is already a perfectly good word and we don't need an exact synonym. So if you want a word for an unknown or uncountable quantity of information, say 'information'. If you want to describe a collection of discrete and in principle countable pieces of information (such as a set of statistics), say 'data'. If you don't care, then don't worry, hardly anyone else does either: but the distinction still has some value, and it means 'datum' (in this sense) isn't obsolete, just specialised.

"Information" already has a perfectly well-defined meaning, and "data" means something else, which has nothing to with whether it is countable or not. Words cannot be turned to new purposes willy-nilly without regard to established meaning without weakening the power of the language to convey meaning accurately.

one collects data and the interpretation of these data may constitute information. There is also a distinction between data and results.
For example, an Xray crystal pattern constitutes the data a protein chemist obtains, the derived structure of that protein is the result.
Thus, it should be incorrect to state that the data show/demonstrate/indicate. When the data are graphed according to some equation or paradigm, then one attempts to understand the relevant process.

"willy-nilly" is a straw-man. No one does that. But we constantly turn old words to new use, which allows us to explain new ideas with reference to established ideas. For example, how do most of us encounter mice these days?

"willy-nilly" is a straw-man. No one does that. But we constantly turn old words to new use, which allows us to explain new ideas with reference to established ideas. For example, how do most of us encounter mice these days?

Poor choice of word, I admit. But at question is not adaption of old words to fit new situations which lack words to describe them, but the confusion of the meaning of words in the existing context. The former adds to the expressive power of the language; the latter deducts from it.

In the specific case above, the implication that "data" and "information" are synonyms is incorrect. Anyway, it's nothing to worry about. Not many people will change the way they use a word merely because some anonymous person suggests it in an internet forum.

That's true. The problem isn't the technically trained, it's everyone else, many of whom find correct usage of "data" as a plural in places such as The Economist to be jarring, and would rather "correct" such usage than broaden their own understanding of the language.

The problem lies more in the use of the verb 'to be'. The difference between 'is' and 'are' is too stark for comfort. Try using a more normal verb where the presence or absence of an 's' usually has minimal impact, e.g. 'the data show that....', OR 'the data shows that ....'

Actually, no, I think the Economist's house style makes both of these plural. The first one would be "Our headquarters are in Dubai". There's an example in this article, for instance: http://www.economist.com/node/21556251